Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rpi!nisc.nyser.net!rodan!amichiel
From: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Michielsen)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Shuttle Vandenburg Lauch Site
Message-ID: <1586@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
Date: 19 Dec 89 19:26:19 GMT
Reply-To: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (A. Michielsen)
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Lines: 60

In article <15010@boulder.Colorado.EDU> serre@tramp.Colorado.EDU (SERRE GLENN) writes:
>Info about Vandenberg:
> 
>1) SLC-6 (Shuttle Launch Pad) was indeed mostly, if not completely, finished. 
>
  Finished Steel structures & Concrete LOOK but don't MAKE a Completed site

>2) I get the impression that West Coast Launches were abandoned when it was
>   decided not to go ahead with composite SRBs for the shuttle.  Without the
>   upgraded boosters, Shuttle payload would have been extremely limited.  
>
   Vandenberg is nearly the optimal launch site for Security Missions, but 
   more importantly; for the orbital angle desired for many of the security
   missions, (i.e. most classes of semi-polar orbital spy sat's like keyholes)
   vandenberg offers the best launch angle. Ground security, nearby overflight
   ground/population exposure, foreign country isolation, electronic intell
   isolation (which is prohibited by law, but the U.S Violates flagrantly, but
   loudly complains when the soviets or chinese or japanese do it).

   IF HOWEVER, Vandenberg is considered as a REPLACEMENT for the Cape, & the
   typical (desired) traffic of commercial sat equip., THEN Vandenberg is 
   'virtually' useless with out GROSSLY more powerful SRB's.  Even the  1 time
   SRB design would only make a marginally usefull facility for MOST Commercial
   traffic, simply because of the dramatically different launch angle.
  
   Vandenberg HOWEVER has GREAT problems that weren't properly evaluated 
   BEFORE great GOB's of money were dumped there.
1. The environment is HOSTILE. Sand storms, Oxidation (rust), Solar damage
   (UV ray intensity, tenperature, etc.), and the intense lack of relative
   humidity; combine to cause GREAT AMOUNTS OF FANTASTIC DAMAGE to all kinds
   of equipment that NASA & the USAF has had NO similar experiences with any
   place else on earth. (remember the j. carter desert helo caper ?)
2. The close proximity to several GREAT NATIONAL Historic assets caused great
   consternation by all sorts of environmental, historical, animal, natural
   special intrest groups.  Even the local (few, because the government owns
   like 90 % of the land already) landowners were loud because they didn't
   want their way of life disturbed. 
3. When higher thrusts were made available from the main engines, better
   (slightly) fuel/thrust ratios were achieved from the main engines, and
   higher capacity (old style) SRB's were available. The recon payload limits
   from the Cape then moved from marginal to practical.  Added to the GREAT
   cost over runs from vandenberg because of delays & all the problems above,
   the only rational move was to scrap vandenberg.  However, congress didn't
   want the public relations nightmare of appearing to just JUNK the all the
   millions that went into it, and ordered the USAF to implement a expensive
   plan just to moth ball it.  (moth balling it requires as many repair dollars
   as launch repairs have at the cape because of the hostile conditions.)
   SO, WHEN the USAF wanted $$$ to build a Titan site (for III's today, and
   IV's later). Congress Dumped on them, converting vandenberg to a titan site
   EVEN BEFORE ANY actual cost analysis was done.  It WILL cost more, but was
   politically effective for the government from a PR standpoint.

  {more i edited out}
>--All the above words are my own.  
>
  Me too

>--Glenn Serre

AL